I've sed before and I'll say again fuk all this artificial crAp fast wearing tires,drs,Kers all this and go back to the wider chassis and inforce refueling, overtaking problem solved. Someone said why would you after the exciting season we had? Fair point but so was 1999 didn't they refuel then, I think it's jus a circle, we will get another season the same in maybe 5-10 yrs from now.

Chriso wrote:

inforce refueling overtaking problem solved

I really, really hope you are a troll.If not, please do some research, because the above is a lie and you should know it. Please look at overtaking figures from '94-'09 and make the relevant comparisons.

_________________I don't follow F1 so I don't know what I'm talking about

No, there isn't really any need to bring it back. It didn't add anything to the spectacle and it made the races very predictable. Once the first round of stops were over, it was fairly obvious what strategy they were going to follow. The main advantage of refueling was the last few laps before a stop, when you were at your lightest, and it made no sense to carry extra weight.

It prevented teams from adapting to the race on the fly, something this new "formula" provides. Pitstops have become more important, it's even more crucial for a driver to stop on the mark. Wheel gun men to be accurate on their marks. Not to mention, with this new formula, the risk of a pit fire has significantly decreased. The whole idea of a bunch of men in a small area with hot cars, and fuel always seemed like a bad idea. Not to mention the introduction of KERS in 2009 probably put the scares into some people.

The races are more predictable, because once the first stops have happened you know exactly what that car is going to do for the rest of the race, each stint becomes a re run of the last in terms of pace because its weight and tyre degradation will be a repeat of the previous one.

They become less strategic, because you have to come at the scheduled lap (because the fastest laps occur when the car is lowest on fuel, so coming in early will squander that advantage)

The cars are designed in a less compromised state, meaning the team with the bigger advantage will have that advantage magnified (if a car only has to run with 1/3rd of the weight of fuel in it this means the designers have a more consistent operational window to design the car to run in, whereas with a race distance of fuel in the car there is a bigger differential between fully laden and empty)

The times in qualifying do not reflect the fastest times possible, nor does it mean that whoever gets pole is the fastest driver/car package (which is why comparing pole stats meaningless)

There is significant less overtaking. If you are stuck behind a slower car, at the next fuel stop you just fuel for two more laps, sit on their tail, pull out two fast laps when they pit and you're ahead. No need to risk an on track pass. Even without DRS the number of overtakes without refueling is significantly higher before and after refueling was introduced 1994-2009.

The races were much less exciting during the refueling era - 2010 was the most exciting championship battle in a long long time, 2011 has the most exciting races for the consistency of the season and 2012 was a mixture of the two.

Since refueling was scrapped the excitement has shifted more towards human error than technological error. Pitstops are botched by a driver not hitting his marks exactly or a mechanic not changing the wheel fast enough rather than because the fuel rig did not engage or got stuck when releasing. Strategies are dependant on a driver managing his tyres correctly rather than because a computer failed to judge the best fuel load for the race. It opens the race to a lot more variety - drivers can call to pit at any time - rather than a two lap window at the end of the fuel stint, where they have to then make a call (or the team has to make a call) on when they are next going to want to stop, 15-25 laps in the future. Rather than being locked in to that pit stop time, teams and drivers can respond organically to the race.

And as for the comments about the sport some how being worse for drivers "nursing their tyres" rather than going as fast as they can for lap after lap - well it's actually a lot harder to drive that way. It might not be as physically demanding (although the lap times aren't that different so the difference is very small) - it's a lot easier to just drive "as fast as you can" because the driver doesn't have to think about what he is doing. It's the similar to the car designers having an easier job when designing a car that operates on a smaller weight differential. If the driver knows his tyres could last 200 laps without having to worry about them then there is no tactical challenge in what he is doing, he just has to drive "as fast as he can"

It's usually Hamilton fans who complain the most about this, because of the belief Hamilton is hampered by degrading tyres and would be much faster if the tyres lasted much longer, but Spain this year was one of Hamilton's best drives of the season - he was the fast car/driver package of the weekend, however he managed that speed, got his tyres to last one less stop than the rest of the field and ended up finishing ahead of Button despite starting at the back of the grid. And when he got out of the car he made numerous mentions of challenge of managing his tyres for the race and how he'd managed to do such a great job of it.

Tyre management does not hold drivers back, it adds an extra layer required to be a Formula 1 driver. We have qualifying to determine who can do the fastest lap - the race draws on a much bigger pallet of skillsets.

I'd hate it to come back. There are enough variables in the sport taking the race away from drivers hands without this added complication.

If it did come back then I think they should have a set time that the nozzle has to be attached for regardless of how much fuel they need to add. Therefore you remove the majority of the safety issues as placing and removing the nozzle quickly is not a necessity.

At least you had to the first stop to figure out strategy, now u know before race starts, I understand it's dangerous,more expensive and the extra freight wouldn't be missed, but I just miss there sheer speed of these things on low fuel. U get that now towards then end but there tires are gone bye then.

Which driver was it that drove off with the fuel hose still attached to his car, which resulted in a large fireball? (I really can't remember) Its for this reason alone that I'm fine with the no refueling

Good point, there has been numerous occasions this has happened, but that's how it is, heeps of tyres arnt fitted correctly,wheel nut issue or pit crew mistake and you see them bouncing down the road, it could bounce over fence and land on some ones head, should they ban tyre stops too, motorpsort is and always be dangerous, the only thing I can think of it benefitting the sport is that it's cuts down costs which benifit smaller teams, so it's a 50-50 imo

When they first banned refueling, I was disappointed, & really thought that it would make the racing boring especially as my team Ferrari, with Ross Brawn doing the strategy, were quite good at getting the best result out of refuelling pitstops. Since then, however, I have changed my mind. I think that the racing has become more interesting because it relies on other factors & I certainly don't miss seeing some of the dangerous situations pit crews were put in during refuelling.

When they first banned refueling, I was disappointed, & really thought that it would make the racing boring especially as my team Ferrari, with Ross Brawn doing the strategy, were quite good at getting the best result out of refuelling pitstops. Since then, however, I have changed my mind. I think that the racing has become more interesting because it relies on other factors & I certainly don't miss seeing some of the dangerous situations pit crews were put in during refuelling.

When they first banned refueling, I was disappointed, & really thought that it would make the racing boring especially as my team Ferrari, with Ross Brawn doing the strategy, were quite good at getting the best result out of refuelling pitstops. Since then, however, I have changed my mind. I think that the racing has become more interesting because it relies on other factors & I certainly don't miss seeing some of the dangerous situations pit crews were put in during refuelling.

Ross wasn't at Ferrari when they banned Re-fuelling was he?

I didn't mean to infer that Ross was still there when they banned refuelling, which was in 2009 (I think), but that under Ross's strategy Ferrari had been very successful with using refuelling & I that they had continued to do so, if that makes sense. I obviously didn't write it quite the way I meant

Which driver was it that drove off with the fuel hose still attached to his car, which resulted in a large fireball? (I really can't remember) Its for this reason alone that I'm fine with the no refueling

Several did, but you are probably thinking of Heikki at Brazil 2009 when he singed Kimi.

The first time I remember it happening it was by a small team and I remember thinking what idiots they were and how they were showing themselves up. Of course, both McLaren and Ferrari have since done it so it shows it will happen to everyone.